TatankaGap
Regular Member
imported post
Knowing how they work helps foil their plans:
http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Politics/U...ti-Legislation
After reading this, it seems to me that now that the 2A has been incorporated to CA via Nordyke, it is recognized as a fundamental right.
The gov't is not allowed to infringe on a fundamental right unless it meets the so-called 'strict scrutiny' test - it has a compelling gov't purpose and the method of satisfying such purpose is reasonably related to the purpose and is the least restrictive on the fundamental right of the possible methods for satisfying the purpose -
So, according to the paper which discusses the intentional ignoring of forensic evidence and the banning of functionally equivalent guns while not banning others (the AK vs M-14) indicate that even if the gov't purpose is compelling, it is clear that:
1) the method of satisfying the purpose is NOT reasonably related to the purpose because of lack of forensic evidence and intentionally turning a blind eye to such forensic evidence because it would not support the political purposes -
2) the method is not the least restrictive method to achieve the purpose -
** IMHO, FWIW, this is a good one for whomever takes it on - though it will take some money and legal firepower and an ideal plaintiff - maybe when CD Michel and SAF get done with the SF local laws, they can get started with overturning the CA Roberti/Roos -:dude:
Knowing how they work helps foil their plans:
http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Politics/U...ti-Legislation
After reading this, it seems to me that now that the 2A has been incorporated to CA via Nordyke, it is recognized as a fundamental right.
The gov't is not allowed to infringe on a fundamental right unless it meets the so-called 'strict scrutiny' test - it has a compelling gov't purpose and the method of satisfying such purpose is reasonably related to the purpose and is the least restrictive on the fundamental right of the possible methods for satisfying the purpose -
So, according to the paper which discusses the intentional ignoring of forensic evidence and the banning of functionally equivalent guns while not banning others (the AK vs M-14) indicate that even if the gov't purpose is compelling, it is clear that:
1) the method of satisfying the purpose is NOT reasonably related to the purpose because of lack of forensic evidence and intentionally turning a blind eye to such forensic evidence because it would not support the political purposes -
2) the method is not the least restrictive method to achieve the purpose -
** IMHO, FWIW, this is a good one for whomever takes it on - though it will take some money and legal firepower and an ideal plaintiff - maybe when CD Michel and SAF get done with the SF local laws, they can get started with overturning the CA Roberti/Roos -:dude:
